Tropisetron in the prevention of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting over six courses of emetogenic chemotherapy

Tropisetron (Navoban") suppresses nausea and vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapy by antagonizing central and peripheral 5-HT3 receptors. In this open-label study, tropisetron was evaluated in 873 patients who were either refractory to antiemetic treatment during previous chemotherapy or at high risk of emesis as a result of current chemotherapy. The most commonly used agents alone or in combination were cyclophosphamide (35%), fluorouracil (30%), carboplatin (24%) and cisplatin (21%). The primary tumors were breast cancer (27%), lung cancer (16%), gynecological cancers (12%) and lymphoma (9%). Tropisetron was administered as a 15 min infusion prior to chemotherapy and an additional oral 5 mg dose was taken by 80% of the patients on subsequent days. During course 1, complete response to tropisetron was obtained in 64% of patients on day 1, 54% on day 2, 63% on day 3, 71% on day 4 and 77% on day 5. Very similar response rates were found for the six chemotherapy courses. There were few failures after complete and partial response, at maximum 3 and 15%, respectively. Moreover, 24-38% of those with partial response and 7-29% of those with failure could achieve a complete response during the following cycle. The treatment was well tolerated, the most frequently reported adverse events being constipation (3.7%) and headache (2.6%).     

Review of the preclinical pharmacology and comparative efficacy of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonists for chemotherapy-induced emesis

PURPOSE: This analysis was undertaken to review published reports of the comparative efficacy and safety of 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in the prophylaxis of acute chemotherapy-induced emesis. METHODS: Comparison data used are the preclinical pharmacology as well as the design and results of clinical trials. Seven comparative studies that used granisetron, ondansetron, or tropisetron in patients who received either moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy are reviewed. As the study designs, patient population, chemotherapy, antiemetic doses and schedule, and methods of assessment were slightly different, the results of each study are analyzed independently. Effectiveness is assessed by emetic episodes, nausea, and patient preference. RESULTS: The preclinical pharmacologic profile is different among the 5-HT3 antagonists in terms of potency, selectivity, dose response, and duration of action. The comparative clinical trials show that a single intravenous (i.v.) dose of granisetron 3 mg is as effective as multiple (8 mg x 3) or single (32 mg) i.v. doses of ondansetron for the prevention of acute nausea and emesis due to cisplatin. In the two moderately emetogenic clinical trials, granisetron 3 mg i.v. was at least as effective as ondansetron 8 mg i.v. +/- 24 mg orally and tropisetron 5 mg i.v. Patient preference was evaluated in three of the four crossover trials: granisetron was preferred in three of four, and no preference was reported in the fourth. The one trial to compare ondansetron 0.15 mg/kg x 3 versus granisetron 10 micrograms/kg x 1 or granisetron 40 micrograms/kg i.v. demonstrated equivalent control of nausea and vomiting in patients who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: The 5-HT3 receptor antagonists compared are highly effective antiemetic agents that have now become the standard of care for preventing chemotherapy-induced emesis. Whether the described preclinical differences among these agents are also clinically significant remains to be seen. In the comparative trials analyzed, the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists demonstrated relatively equivalent clinical efficacy. Cost analysis may favor the use of one agent over another depending on the emetogenic challenge, dose of the 5-HT3 antagonists, and number of doses recommended. Patient preference may be an important factor to be considered in future antiemetic trials.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tropisetron, metoclopramide, and chlorpromazine in the treatment of emesis associated with far advanced cancer

BACKGROUND: A single institution, prospective, randomized trial was performed in terminal cancer patients to compare tropisetron (TRO), metoclopramide (MET), and chlorpromazine (CHL) in the management of nausea and emesis. Patients had far advanced cancer, were far removed from chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and their nausea and emesis was not due to bowel obstruction, drug intake, or cranial, electrolytic, or metabolic causes. The effects of antiemetic treatments were evaluated from Days 1-15. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty patients were randomized to receive 1) MET+ dexamethasone (DEX) (10 mg*4 and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 2) TRO (5 mg*1, orally), 3) TRO + MET (5 mg*1 and 10 mg*2, respectively, orally), 4) TRO + MET + DEX (5 mg*1, 10 mg*2, and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 5) CHL + DEX (25 mg*2 and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally), 6) TRO + CHL (5 mg*1 and 12.5 mg*2, respectively, orally), or 7) TRO + CHL + DEX (5 mg*1, 12.5 mg*2, and 2 mg*1, respectively, orally). Total control was defined as no nausea or emesis. RESULTS: By the end of the 15th day, total control of emesis was obtained in 23.6% (9 of 38) of MET + DEX patients, 78.9% (30 of 38) of TRO patients, 84.2% (32 of 38) of TRO + MET patients, 92.3% (36 of 39) of TRO + MET + DEX patients, 33.3 (13 of 39) of CHL + DEX patients, 84.6% (33 of 39) of TRO + CHL patients, and 92.5% (37 of 40) of TRO + CHL + DEX patients. Total control of nausea was achieved in 18.4% (7 of 38) of MET + DEX patients, 65.7% (25 of 38) of TRO patients, 73.6% (28 of 38) of TRO + MET patients, 87.1% (34 of 39) of TRO + MET + DEX patients, 17.9% (7 of 39) of CHL + DEX patients, 74.3% (29 of 39) of TRO + CHL patients, and 85% (34 of 40) of TRO + CHL + DEX patients. When comparing MET + DEX versus TRO; MET + DEX versus TRO + MET; MET + DEX versus TRO + MET + DEX; MET + DEX versus TRO + CHL; MET + DEX versus TRO + CHL + DEX; CHL + DEX versus TRO; CHL + DEX versus TRO + MET; CHL + DEX versus TRO + MET + DEX; CHL + DEX versus TRO + CHL; and CHL + DEX versus TRO + CHL + DEX, significant differences were noted. All antiemetic drugs were well tolerated with no severe side effects observed in any treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that 5-HT3 receptor antagonists such as tropisetron clinically are more effective in the control of emesis of patients with far advanced cancer than previously used agents. This study raises important issues when attempting to decide which antiemetic therapy to choose for an individual patient with far advanced disease.     

Control of nausea and vomiting with ondansetron in patients treated with intensive non-cisplatin chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia

18 consecutive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) treated with 34 cycles of intensive chemotherapy received ondansetron as antiemetic treatment. 14 patients were chemotherapy-naive, while 4 patients were treated for relapsed leukaemia. All patients received at least one cycle of chemotherapy, 11 patients (61%) received two cycles and 5 patients (28%) received three cycles. The remission induction regimen consisted of cytarabine 200 mg/m2 daily from day 1 to day 7, in combination with an anthracycline or amsacrine on 3 days. During the second and third cycle the dose of cytarabine was increased. Ondansetron was administered as follows: 8 mg intravenously before the start of chemotherapy, followed by 8 mg orally three times daily for 10 days. 50% of patients had no episodes of vomiting during the first cycle of chemotherapy and 78% had less than five episodes of vomiting over 10 days. 72% of patients had no or only mild nausea. These high response rates were maintained during the subsequent cycles. No side-effects due to ondansetron were registered. These data indicate that ondansetron is efficacious in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients with AML treated with intensive chemotherapy.     

Oral ondansetron for the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis: a large, multicenter, double-blind, randomized comparative trial of ondansetron versus placebo

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of oral ondansetron in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis in patients who do not require rescue antiemetic therapy for acute emesis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred thirty-eight chemotherapy-naive patients who received cisplatin chemotherapy (> or = 70 mg/m2), and who were not rescued for acute emesis, were eligible to be randomized to receive one of the three oral regimens to control delayed emesis. Group I received placebo on days 2 to 6; group II received ondansetron 8 mg twice daily on days 2 and 3 and placebo on days 4 to 6; group III received ondansetron 8 mg twice daily on days 2 to 6. All patients received intravenous ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg every 4 hours for three doses) for the control of acute emesis on day 1. The number of emetic episodes on days 2 and 3 combined (days 2/3, when incidence and severity of delayed emesis were expected to be greatest) was considered the primary measure of efficacy. RESULTS: Patients who received odansetron had significantly fewer emetic episodes on days 2/3, 4, and 5 than those who received placebo (P < or = .002 on each day). Additionally, significantly more patients who received ondansetron had a complete plus major response (C+MR; < or = two two emetic episodes) than those who received placebo on days 2/3 (56% v 37%, P = .001), 4 (94% v 85%, P = .005), and 5 (98% v 88%, P = .006). Patients who received ondansetron had significantly less nausea on day 2/3 when day-1 nausea was used as the baseline score (P = .025). Patients who received ondansetron also had significantly less nausea on day 4 (P = .042) and the results approached significance on day 5 (P = .066). CONCLUSION: Oral ondansetron had a significant effect in the control of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis and nausea in patients who had not required rescue antiemetics during the acute emesis period. The control of delayed nausea and vomiting was most notable in the immediate 2 days following cisplatin administration, with the clinical difference narrowing between the two treatment arms on subsequent days.     

Immunoglobulin production by human peripheral B cells against Staphylococcus aureus

Patterns of antiemetic therapy and its outcomes in patients undergoing high-dose antineoplastic therapy were studied. The study, conducted at a cancer center, included both a retrospective evaluation of patients undergoing highly emetogenic high-dose chemotherapy with peripheral blood stem-cell rescue between November 1994 and December 1995 and a concurrent evaluation of patients treated between January and May 1996. During the study period the recommended antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy was a single dose of granisetron 1 mg i.v. daily 30 minutes before treatment on days of chemotherapy. Severity of nausea and vomiting during both the acute phase (from day 1 of chemotherapy to 24 hours after its completion) and delayed phase (from 24 hours to five days after the end of chemotherapy) was graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria Grading Scale. A total of 59 patients were evaluable; 41 were reviewed retrospectively, and 18 were reviewed concurrently. On day 1 of the acute phase, 53 patients (90%) had no vomiting and 51 patients (86%) had no nausea. The frequency and severity of nausea and vomiting increased on successive acute-phase days, and it was necessary to add other antiemetics. Nausea and vomiting continued to be significant problems throughout the delayed phase; 32 (54%) of the patients had a maximum of grade 3 nausea, and 29 patients (49%) had a maximum of grade 2 vomiting. Substantial numbers of patients who received selective serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists before high-dose antineoplastic agents had significant nausea and vomiting that required the addition of other antiemetics.     

A lymphoma cell line resistant to 4-piperidinopiperidine was less sensitive to CPT-11

The purpose of the study was to assess the toxicity and efficacy of an oral, combination antiemetic regimen including granisetron (Kytril; SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia, PA, USA) in the setting of highly emetogenic conditioning chemotherapy for stem cell transplantation. Antiemetic prophylaxis consisted of oral granisetron 2 mg once daily, oral prochlorperazine 10 mg q 6 h and oral dexamethasone 4 mg q 6 h, beginning 1 h prior to chemotherapy on each of the 4 days of chemotherapy and continuing until 24 h after the completion of high-dose chemotherapy (HDC). Patients received either CVP (cyclophosphamide 6 g/m2, VP-16 1800 mg/m2 and carboplatin 1200 mg/m2) or CTP (thiotepa 500 mg/m2 in place of VP-16) in four daily doses given over 4 h from days -4 to -1. Previously mobilized and cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) were reinfused on day +1. Evaluation of nausea, emetic episodes (EE), adverse events, and rescue medications were recorded on a daily patient diary. Thirty-six patients were entered. Fifty-three percent (95% CI = 37-75%) of patients achieved complete response for emesis (CR = 0 EE/24 h) and 75% (95% CI = 58-90%) had combined complete and major response (CR+MR = 0-3 EE/24 h) during all 5 of the treatment days. During the 5 study days, the average number of patient-days with no emesis was 3.7 (74%) and with 1-3 EE was 4.3 (86%). On days -4, -3, -2, -1 and 0, the combined CR+MR rate for emesis was 97, 92, 86, 78 and 75%, respectively. Nausea was absent or mild on all 5 study days in 57% (95% CI = 37-75%). Eight patients had severe late-onset emesis occurring on days +1 to +3 after reinfusion of stem cells. No clinically significant toxicities attributable to the antiemetic regimen were observed. An all oral antiemetic regimen of granisetron, prochlorperazine and dexamethasone appears to be safe and highly effective in patients receiving multiple, daily, high-dose chemotherapy regimens. This regimen offers the advantage of cost-savings, a low side-effect profile and ease of administration in the predominately outpatient setting of HDC with peripheral blood stem cell transplant (PBSCT).     

Treatment of cisplatin-related nausea and vomiting with a combination of ondansetron and metoclopramide: a pilot study

Forty chemotherapy-naive patients receiving high-dose cisplatin were included in a pilot study of a combination of ondansetron plus metoclopramide as antiemetic therapy. Patients received ondansetron 16 mg plus metoclopramide 0.5 mg/kg in 250 cm3 of normal saline i.v. 15 min before cisplatin administration on day 1; then ondansetron 8 mg was given orally b.i.d. and metoclopramide 0.5 mg/kg was given intramuscularly t.i.d. for 4 days. This combination was given to all patients receiving the first cycle of chemotherapy. At the second cycle of chemotherapy all patients received the same antiemetic treatment as above plus methylprednisolone 125 mg i.v. on day 1 and the intramuscularly once a day for 4 days. There were 20 females and 20 males with a mean performance status of 1 (range 0-2) and a mean age of 58 years (range 36-68). Ten patients had ovarian carcinoma, eight patients had uterine adenocarcinoma and 22 and non-small cell lung carcinoma. The mean cisplatin dose was 96 mg/m2. All patients denied significant alcohol consumption. At cycle 1, complete protection against acute emesis was achieved in 22 patients (55%), major protection in 12 cases (30%), minor protection in four patients (10%) and failure in two cases (5%). On the other hand, the efficacy of this combination on delayed vomiting was not striking. For delayed vomiting, complete protection was observed in nine patients (23%), major protection in 13 cases (33%), minor protection in 10 patients (25%) and failure in eight cases (20%). At cycle 2, patients also received methylprednisolone showing complete protection from vomiting in 19 cases (47%) and major protection on 12 cases (30%). Results achieved with ondansetron plus metoclopramide are in the range reported for ondansetron alone in the medical literature. Although this study was not prospectively carried out in a randomized fashion, the results are not suggestive of a possible positive effect of metoclopramide addition to ondansetron. On the other hand, these results stress the role that corticosteroids may play in the control of delayed emesis. Toxicity was predictable and the frequency of side-effects was in the range reported in other studies with ondansetron.     

Effectiveness and tolerance of Navoban (5HT3-receptor antagonist tropisetron) in prevention of cytostatic drug-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast carcinomas and gynecological malignancies

Efficacy and safety of the antiemetic agent Navoban (5HT3-receptor-antagonist Tropisetron) on cytostatic-induced emesis of breast cancers and gynecological cancers was tested in 28 female patients receiving a total of 127 chemotherapy courses containing high (cisplatin), moderate high (cyclophosphamid) or moderate (for example 5 FU) emetogenic cytostatic drugs. We studied antiemetic response rates of Navoban (5 mg/d) during the first 24 hours after administration of the chemotherapy as well as response rates of the "delayed nausea and emesis" (days 2-9 after chemotherapy). A complete response was observed in 103 chemotherapy courses (= 81.1%) during the first 24 hours after chemotherapy and in 93 courses (= 73.2%) for the "delayed emesis". Treatment failures (more than 5 vomiting episodes) during the first 24 hours were present in four courses and for the "delayed emesis" in 11 courses. The side effects of Navoban such as constipation, headache or tiredness were minimum. Therefore no patient refused to receive the necessary chemotherapy. Navoban is, with its single dose application, an effective therapeutic drug for the prevention of nausea and emesis in patients receiving a chemotherapy.     

Control of emesis by intravenous granisetron in breast cancer patients treated with 5-FU, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide

Granisetron, a potent and selective 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor (5-HT3) antagonist was reported to be an effective antiemetic agent both in animal studies and in patients given highly emetogenic chemotherapy. A sample of 43 patients with breast cancer was accrued from September to November 1992 in a phase II study to assess the efficacy of granisetron in patients receiving FEC (5-FU, epirubicin, cyclophosphamide). Each patient received 3 mg intravenous granisetron as a single dose just prior to chemotherapy. Oral metoclopromide was prescribed to each patient as a rescue anti-emetic. The emetic episodes and degree of nausea were evaluated on a daily basis. Good control of emesis (0-2 episodes of vomiting) and nausea (mild or no nausea) was in the range 77%-98% and 77%-93% respectively. There was a complete response (no emetic episodes throughout the 6-day period) in 16 patients (37.2%). Onset of emesis tends to occur on day 1 and tend to subside after day 3; 85% of patients had onset of emesis in the first 2 days after chemotherapy. Control of emesis and nausea tends to improve after day 3, which could be the result of the reduced emetogenicity of the combination FEC with time. Altogether, 77% had good control of acute emesis; control of delayed emesis was better with 84% achieving a major response on day 2 after chemotherapy, which improved to more than 90% after day 4. Granisetron was generally tolerated with headache being the most common side-effect followed by constipation and flushing. This study suggests that granisetron is an effective and well-tolerated anti-emetic agent, which deserves randomised trials to elucidate its efficacy further.     

Familial inv(X) (p22q22): ovarian dysgenesis in two sisters with del Xq and fertility in one male carrier

PURPOSE: To evaluate the antiemetic efficacy and safety of adding the dopamine antagonist prochlorperazine to the combination of granisetron and dexamethasone in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting following high-dose cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients receiving cisplatin (> or = 75 mg/m2) (median dose = 100 mg/m2) were enrolled at three sites. Patients received prochlorperazine spansule 15 mg orally, 60 minutes prior to and 12 hours after cisplatin; dexamethasone 20 mg intravenously, 45 minutes prior to cisplatin, and 10 mg intravenously or orally, 12 hours after cisplatin; and granisetron 10 micrograms/kg intravenously, 30 minutes prior to cisplatin. Efficacy was assessed during the 24-hour period after cisplatin using complete antiemetic response (no emetic episodes and no rescue antiemetics) and patient assessment of nausea and satisfaction using 100-mm visual analog scales (nausea: 0 = none, 100 = nausea as bad as it can be; satisfaction: 0 = not at all satisfied, 100 = satisfied as can be). RESULTS: Complete response (0 emetic episodes) was noted in 84% (49/58) of patients. Forty-two patients (72%) experienced no nausea. The mean change in posttreatment nausea visual analog scales from baseline was 8.9 mm. Forty-eight patients (83%) were completely satisfied with their antiemetic treatment. The mean posttreatment patient satisfaction score was 92 mm. Treatment was well tolerated, with infrequent and minor adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This three-drug antiemetic regimen is well tolerated and highly effective in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting arising from high-dose cisplatin. Further studies evaluating this regimen are warranted.     

Antiemetic activity of propofol after sevoflurane and desflurane anesthesia for outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the effectiveness of propofol to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting. This prospective, randomized, single-blinded study was designed to evaluate the antiemetic effectiveness of 0.5 mg/kg propofol when administered intravenously after sevoflurane- compared with desflurane-based anesthesia. METHODS: Two hundred fifty female outpatients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were assigned randomly to one of four treatment groups. All patients were induced with intravenous doses of 2 mg midazolam, 2 microg/kg fentanyl, and 2 mg/kg propofol and maintained with either 1-4% sevoflurane (groups 1 and 2) or 2-8% desflurane (groups 3 and 4) in combination with 65% nitrous oxide in oxygen. At skin closure, patients in groups 1 and 3 were administered 5 ml intravenous saline, and patients in groups 2 and 4 were administered 0.5 mg/kg propofol intravenously. Recovery times were recorded from discontinuation of anesthesia to awakening, orientation, and readiness to be released home. Postoperative nausea and vomiting and requests for antiemetic rescue medication were evaluated during the first 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: Propofol, in an intravenous dose of 0.5 mg/kg, administered at the end of a sevoflurane-nitrous oxide or desflurane-nitrous oxide anesthetic prolonged the times to awakening and orientation by 40-80% and 25-30%, respectively. In group 2 (compared with groups 1, 3, and 4), the incidences of emesis (22% compared with 47%, 53%, and 47%) and requests for antiemetic rescue medication (19% compared with 42%, 50%, and 47%) within the first 6 h after surgery were significantly lower, and the time to home-readiness was significantly shorter in duration (216 +/- 50 min vs. 249 +/- 49 min, 260 +/- 88 min, and 254 +/- 72 min, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A subhypnotic intravenous dose of propofol (0.5 mg/kg) administered at the end of outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedures was more effective in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after a sevoflurane-based (compared with a desflurane-based) anesthetic.     

Oral combination antiemetics in patients with small cell lung cancer receiving cisplatin or cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin

BACKGROUND: Intravenous antiemetic combinations containing a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (like metoclopramide, ondansetron, or granisetron) with dexamethasone have become the standard therapy for the treatment of acute chemotherapy-induced vomiting. Intravenous antiemetics, however, can be more costly and take more time to prepare and deliver, and therefore are not preferred for home, outpatient, or office use. The objective of this study was to determine the antiemetic activity and safety of the oral combination antiemetic regimen of metoclopramide, dexamethasone, and diphenhydramine in patients with small cell lung cancer receiving standard outpatient chemotherapy programs. METHODS: Fifty-two patients receiving initial cisplatin (60 mg/m2) or cyclophosphamide (600-1500 mg/m2) plus doxorubicin (30-45 mg/m2) received an oral regimen of metoclopramide (3 mg/kg x 2 then 2 mg/kg x 2 or 4 doses), dexamethasone (20 mg) and diphenhydramine (50 mg x 2 or 3 doses) (oral MDD), beginning 30 minutes before chemotherapy. RESULTS: Vomiting was prevented in 15 of 21 (76%) patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 53%-92%) receiving cisplatin and 21 of 31 (71%) individuals (95% CI, 52%-86%) given cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin. Adverse effects were mild and transient and included sedation, loose stools, akathisia, and hiccoughs. CONCLUSIONS: The oral MDD antiemetic regimen prevented acute emesis in 73% of the patients entered and was well tolerated in this population of patients with small cell lung cancer.     

Compomers and glass ionomers: bond strength to dentin and mechanical properties

Twenty-six patients with newly diagnosed ALL (age range 15-49 years, median 32 years) received treatment comprising: cycles 1 and 2: adriamycin 30 mg/m2 days 1-3, vincristine: 2 mg days 1, 8, and 15, with prednisolone 40 mg daily, given until complete remission (CR). L-asparaginase 10000 units/m2, days 1-14, was given only with the first cycle. Cycle 3 consisted of 100 mg/m2 etoposide orally, days 1-5, and 1 gm/m2 bd cytosine arabinoside (ara-C) days 1-5. Cycles 1-3 were then repeated. Intrathecal methotrexate (MTX) 12.5 mg was given on day 1 of each treatment cycle. The first 12 consecutive patients received this chemotherapy alone, the subsequent 14 received, in addition, 3 micrograms/kg GM-CSF subcutaneously, from day 4 of cycles 1,2,4 and 5 (and from day 6 of cycles 3 and 6) until the absolute neutrophil count had reached 0.5 x 10(9)/1. All patients in whom CR was achieved then received prophylactic cranial irradiation. With the exception of those with T-ALL, this was followed by oral maintenance therapy consisting of 6-mercaptopurine, MTX, and cyclophosphamide for 3 years. Patients receiving GM-CSF did not have shorter intercycle times or a lower incidence of documented infections than those who did not receive it. The CR rate was 89% overall-uninfluenced by GM-CSF, but higher than that achieved previously at St Bartholomew's Hospital in an equivalent age-group.     

Loss of biological activity due to Glu-->Arg mutation at residue 11 of the B subunit of cholera toxin

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose, toxicities, and potential antitumor activity of edatrexate (E), an antifolate agent with enhanced in vitro antitumor activity as compared with methotrexate (M), when given in combination with vinblastine, doxorubicin, cisplatin, and filgrastim (G-CSF) to patients with advanced malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with advanced malignancies were treated with escalating doses of edatrexate in combination with vinblastine (V), doxorubicin (A), cisplatin (C), and filgrastim (EVAC/G-CSF) following three different subsequently developed schedules. Schedule 1 was patterned after the MVAC regimen, a combination chemotherapy program with activity against different epithelial malignancies, and consisted of E, 40 mg/m2/day, days 1/15/22; V, 3 mg/m2/day, days 2/15/22; A, 30 mg/m2/ day, day 2; C, 70 mg/m2/day, day 2; repeated every 28 days. Schedules 2 and 3 were designed to avoid observed dose-limiting toxicity on schedule 1 consisting of transient elevation of serum creatinine levels and delayed myelosuppression. Schedule 2 consisted of E, 40 or 60 mg/ m2/day, days 1 and 15; V, 3 mg/m2/day, days 2 and 15; A, 30 mg/m2/day, day 2; C, 30 mg/m2/day, days 1 and 2; cycled every 28 days. Schedule 3 consisted of E, 60 to 120 mg/m2/day, day 1; V, 3 mg/m2/day, day 2; A, 30 mg/m2/day, day 2; C, 30 mg/m2/day, days 1 and 2; cycled every 21 days. Filgrastim 5 micrograms/kg/day was given to all patients subcutaneously until the absolute neutrophil count was greater than 10,000/microL postnadir. Three patients were treated on schedule 1, 10 on schedule 2 (four at an E dose of 40 mg/m2/day and six at an E dose of 60 mg/m2/day), and 24 on schedule 3 (six at each of the following E dosages: 60, 80, 100, and 120 mg/m2/day). RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities of grade 3 to 4 leukopenia and transient elevation of serum creatinine values were observed in two of three patients treated on schedule 1. A dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 to 4 leukopenia was noted in two of six patients treated on schedule 2 at an edatrexate dose of 60 mg/m2/day. Two of six patients treated on schedule 3 at an edatrexate dose of 120 mg/m2/day had a dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 stomatitis (one patient) and grade 3 cytopenia (one patient). Nineteen of 37 patients with evaluable or measurable disease had a response to treatment (response rate 51%, 95% confidence intervals = 35%-67%). Nine of 15 patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer responded, including one complete remission (response rate 60%, confidence intervals = 35%-85%). A median survival of 517 days (confidence interval = 163-808 days) and a 1-year survival rate of 60% (confidence interval = 35%-85%) was seen in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase II dose of edatrexate is 100 mg/m2/day when administered as part of the EVAC/G-CSF program following schedule 3. Promising antineoplastic activity against non-small cell lung carcinomas was observed, and a phase II study is planned.     

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of the oral platinum analogue JM216 given daily for 14 days

BACKGROUND: The oral bis (acetate) ammine dichloro cyclohexylamine platinum (IV) analogue (BMS-182751) was brought into clinical development because it was shown to be cytotoxic against some human tumour cell lines and to have an antitumor activity in murine tumours at least comparable to that of parenteral cisplatin and carboplatin. In early clinical studies in which the optimal schedule of treatment was daily for five consecutive days, dose-dependent nausea and vomiting occurred in about two-thirds of patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To evaluate if the use of lower daily doses for longer periods of time could result in a better tolerability, JM216 was given once daily for 14 consecutive days every four to five weeks to adult patients with solid tumors. Oral antiemetics were given prophylactically only at the highest doses. The pharmacokinetics of total and ultrafiltrable platinum were studied on days 1 and 14 of the first cycle by Inductively Coupled-Mass-Spectrometry (ICP-MS). RESULTS: Forty-six patients were treated at doses ranging from 10 mg/m2/d to 50 mg/m2/d and 39 were evaluable for hematologic toxicity over 74 cycles. MTDs were reached at 45 mg/m2/d and 50 mg/m2/d x 14 repeated every five weeks in patients with extensive, or limited/no prior treatment, respectively. The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia which was delayed and variable among patients. Other non-hematological toxicities were severe vomiting (22% of cycles), diarrhea (28% of cycles) and drug-associated fever (32% of patients), controlled with paracetamol. Subjective improvement with disappearance of tumour-related pain was observed in one patient with chemotherapy-resistant metastatic prostate cancer and in one previously untreated patient with malignant mesothelioma. Cmax and AUC values of both total and ultrafiltrable platinum on days 1 and 14 were highly variable among patients. Only Cmax on day 1 was linearly related to the dose. Total and ultrafiltrable platinum were still detectable two weeks after the last dose. No relationship could be established between AUC values and toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Daily doses of JM216 of 40 mg/m2 and 45 mg/m2 for 14 consecutive days every five weeks with oral antiemetic prophylaxis are selected for phase II evaluation of single agent in patients with extensive or limited/no prior treatment, respectively. The administration of JM216 on a day x 14 schedule produced nausea and vomiting comparable to that observed with the day x 5 regimen but of longer duration. The variability of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, even though limited at the doses proposed for phase II evaluation of JM216 as single agent, recommend a careful monitoring of the patients.     

Early neuropsychological impairment in HIV-seropositive intravenous drug users: evidence from the Italian Multicentre Neuropsychological HIV Study

The purpose of this study was to document the emetogenic potential of intrathecal chemotherapy (IC) in children and to evaluate the efficacy of ondansetron in reducing nausea and vomiting with this chemotherapy treatment. Patients less than 18 years of age with acute lymphoblastic leukemia were eligible to participate in a survey project measuring the emetogenic potential of various chemotherapy treatments. Patients surveyed for 1 or more IC treatments were included in this report. The IC consisted of methotrexate, hydrocortisone and cytarabine, dosed according to patient age. A nausea/vomiting survey instrument was completed by each patient and/or parent following IC treatment. The instrument rated nausea, vomiting and daily activity interference (DAI) on a 4-point scale of 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate and 3 = severe, and collected data on the number of vomiting and/or retching episodes in addition to the child's appetite following the chemotherapy treatment. When ondansetron was employed, it was administered in an i.v. infusion at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg before and after chemotherapy or as an oral dose of 4 mg or 8 mg before chemotherapy. Courses of IC without antiemetics were analyzed to determine the emetogenic potential of IC. For patients receiving IC both with and without ondansetron, courses were compared with each patient used as their own control to determine the influence of ondansetron upon survey responses. Statistical analysis consisted of nonparametric Friedman 2-way ANOVA for ordinal variables and a paired t-test for continuous variables. The binomial test was employed to analyze for differences between ondansetron and no antiemetic in the number of patients with complete control of both nausea and vomiting or vomiting alone. A total of 63 children with a mean age of 7.6 +/- 4.2 years were each studied on one or more occasions. Thirty-seven children were surveyed for 87 IC treatments without antiemetics (group I), and 17 children from this group were surveyed for 48 IC courses with i.v. ondansetron (group IA). An additional 18 children were subsequently surveyed for 39 IC courses with i.v. ondansetron (group II). Fifteen patients (7 of whom were members of group I) were surveyed following 33 IC courses with oral ondansetron (group III). The survey scores for group I patients were: nausea severity 1.3 +/- 1.1, vomiting severity 1.2 +/- 1.1, DAI 1.2 +/- 1.0 and mean number of emetic episodes 4.7 +/- 8.4. The mean appetite score was 1.5 +/- 1.1. For patients in group IA, nausea severity (0.8 +/- 0.9), vomiting severity (0.5 +/- 0.8), DAI (0.7 +/- 0.8), and the number of emetic episodes (1.4 +/- 2.8) were all significantly lower than with prior IC treatments without ondansetron. For complete protection, children receiving i.v. ondansetron had greater complete protection rates from both nausea and vomiting or vomiting alone than did patients receiving no antiemetic. Survey responses were also lower for patients receiving oral ondansetron, but insufficient control data did not allow for statistical analysis. IC results in mild to moderate nausea and vomiting in children. The emetogenic potential of IC is significantly reduced by i.v. ondansetron.     

Phase I safety and pharmacokinetics study of micronized atovaquone in human immunodeficiency virus-infected infants and children. Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group

A phase I dose-escalating safety and pharmacokinetic study evaluated an oral suspension of micronized atovaquone (m-atovaquone) in infants and children stratified into age groups from 1 month to 12 years of age. Dosages of 10, 30, and 45 mg/kg of body weight/day were evaluated as single daily doses over a period of 12 days. Steady-state concentrations in plasma were determined on day 12, and single postdose concentrations were measured on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 21, and 24. Prior studies with adults suggest that the average plasma atovaquone concentration of 15 micrograms/ml is associated with therapeutic success in more than 95% of patients with Pneumocystis carinii pneumonitis. The results showed m-atovaquone to be safe and well tolerated. Dosages of 30 mg/kg/day were adequate to achieve an average steady-state concentration of greater than 15 micrograms/ml in children ages 1 to 3 months and 2 to 12 years, but a dosage of 45 mg/kg/day was needed to reach this concentration in infants 3 to 24 months of age. The oral suspension of atovaquone is safe and well tolerated in children. A single daily dose of 30 mg/kg provides bioavailability considered adequate for therapy of P. carinii pneumonia, but infants between 3 and 24 months of age may require a dosage of 45 mg/kg/day.     

A randomized trial of tropisetron in the prophylaxis of nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy

Thirty patients receiving cisplation or non-cisplatin (containing cyclophosphamide and adriamycin) chemotherapy were enrolled in a randomized, crossover study comparing the efficacy of single dose of Navoban (tropisetron, 5 mg) and Kytril (granisetron, 3 mg). The effective control of acute vomiting induced by cisplatin was achieved in 95.2% (20/21) of patients receiving Navoban and 90.5% (19/21) in those receiving Kytril. Complele control rate was 71.4% (15/21) in Navoban arm, and 81.0% (17/21) in Kytril arm. Total control of delayed vomiting (day 2-5) was 71.4%-90.4% in Navoban arm, while it was 66.7%-4% in Kytril arm. The effective control of vomiting induced by non-cisplatin drugs was achieved in 9/9 in both arms. It is concluded that both agents are effective in the control of vomiting induced by chemotherapy. They have identical adverse effects and are well tolerated by the patients.     

High dose chemotherapy in metastatic carcinoma of the breast

PURPOSE: To verify tolerance and clinical efficacy of high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We submitted to HDCT with autologous peripheral blood cells transplant 66 patients, with MBC responding to induction chemotherapy. The condizioning regimen was ICE: iphosphamide 3.3 g/m2 dd. -8/-6, carboplatin 450 mg/m2 plus etoposide 400 mg/m2 dd. -5/-3 (21 patients = 78%); CTM: cyclophosphamide 100 mg/kg dd. -4/-3, tyothepa 500 mg:m2 d.-5, mytoxantrone 40 mg/m2 d. -6 (6 patients, 22%). RESULTS: Median number of aphereses was 2 (range 1-5), median amount of CD34+ cells/kg bw of 10 x 10E6 (range 3.5-38.2). Median recovery time was 10th day for PMN (range 8-37) while for platelets it was 9th day (range 8-37): total hospital stay was of 24 days (range 22-48). After induction therapy we had PR in 13/27 metastatic patients (48%) and CR in 14/27 (52%). After conditioning treatment we had PR in 12/27 (44%) and CR in 15/27 (56%). Median time to progression was 19 months (range 7-38) and median survival 52 months (range 7-59+), with 30% surviving beyond 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Feasibility of HDCT in advanced breast cancer seems verified. The promising results need to be confirmed.